...just the graphics in some games. I really think that graphics are amazing, but people spend too much time on them. For all that time that is spent on graphics, you could spend it on the gameplay. Sure, some games rely on graphics, but also have good gameplay (GT4, Halo Series, Doom), but some games have no concept but only a nice look. What do you think of this?

I agree, but graphics sells games and gameplay doesn't.

Game companies like making investments that are reliable. Making fancier graphics is a pretty reliable and straightforward way of increasing the game's worth. All you have to do is take the capabilities of last years engine, multiply all the numbers by 2, and tell your engineers to get to work.

Spending money on better gameplay is not reliable. There's no straightforward, time-tested path to create better gameplay. You might spend a bunch of money and come up with a terrific game, or you might end up with something that's too weird that no one likes. It's hit-or-miss. As in, it's risky. As in, it's not the kind of thing big companies like to do.

But will a game that has mediocre graphics and amazing gamplay be the same as the game with amazing graphics and almost unbearable gameplay?

Quote:

Original post by Gamedev 2 But will a game that has mediocre graphics and amazing gamplay be the same as the game with amazing graphics and almost unbearable gameplay?

The similarity is that they both sell for money

It wouldn't sell as well unless the graphics where about the same as the previous versions in the series, take Pro Evolution soccer for example, play gets better alot, graphics dont much.

Games like you suggest would be better classic bargain games than chart toppers.

ace

It's easy to take it out on the development companies, but they need to make money, and to make money they have to make what the customer demands: good graphics.

The original SIMS is an example of a game with boring graphics, but good game play. I don’t mean the graphics were bad, just they were not FPS style that seems to drive graphics advances today, yawn.

At any rate using such isometric views allows more CPU time to AI (if that’s at all needed) and perhaps game play as a result. The SIMS had elements of originality. If your game has the best game play but non-textured flat shaded 3d graphics, no one would buy it.

My opinion is that there is too much emphasis on realistic graphics and too little evolution and innovation of gameplay, however I do think many consumers are very superficial today and that is what steers most development as industries are about making profit, not making art.

For me aestethics are indeed important, but i value originality higher than most folks, and so I find that simple can be more beatiful than realistic.

Have you seen screenshots of a game called Darwinia? To me that looks really cool.

I think gaming in general is whoring itself to an audience that cares nothing for gameplay itself but only for the niceties of technological prowess in the form of "watershed" visual art. The casual gamer doesn't play games and doesn't care about gameplay but only cares about being "ooh and aahhhd" at first glance and then looking for the next graphical fix in the form of next year's mandatory upgrade. I am not sorry to say that these gamers have no depth and they are quite possibly ruining the gaming industry because they are reinforcing the idea that gaming is about the money and what sells...It is my belief that Gaming is trying to grow too quickly merely as a consumer product. The current trend is going to upset itself before long and then will rerealize what made it such a success in the firstplay. Gameplay, GAMEPlay, GAMEPLAY!!!!!!